BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

2 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 151Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai69Hyderabad26Mumbai19Pune13Ahmedabad8Kolkata7Delhi6Visakhapatnam5Lucknow5Surat3Bangalore3Jaipur3Rajkot2Chandigarh2Patna2Raipur2Amritsar1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 1488Section 270A5Section 2634Section 151A2Section 148A2

M/S GURMAT PARCHAR SABHA (REGD.),CHANDIGARH vs. NWR-W-(41)(91), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1050/CHANDI/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Maninder Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

condone this small delay of three days and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. The assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal vide which it has challenged the re-opening of an assessment by issuance of a notice under Section 148A(d) of the Act by the jurisdictional AO. According to him, it ought to have been

DINESH VERMA,MANALI, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ITO, ITO WARD KULLU

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 897/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinamar Gupta, C.A (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 263Section 270A

delay of 40 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on the merits. 3. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 2 1. That the Learned PCIT has erred in law and facts and circumstance of the case invoking section 263 by directing the AO to initiate penalty u/s 270A when no penalty